The perplexing thing is the login screen and accounts (are they all Live accounts?)
You can use a Live account, a local account or a domain account (in the pro edition) but the way they designed things a lot of people think they need a Live account. You kinda have to say no to a Live account and then pick another option.
There are some mild benefits to Live accounts like not having to manage local accounts if there are many users on 1 PC (or 1 user on many PC) or being automatically connected to services like Sky Drive. And one does not need to use a Microsoft email address (like live.com or outlook.com) to have a Live account, it's possible to register an existing email address (even gmail).
However there is a gotcha: if you change the Live password while the PC is offline and try to login while the PC is still offline, you need to use the old password. Recently I had a situation where someone did not remember their previous password and was locked out of a tablet because it had been configured only for a wifi network that did not exist anymore... Quite annoying as there is obviously no "Send me my previous password" feature with Live accounts and one needs to login to connect to a wifi network..
Maybe it's a matter of preference then. I prefer typing fewer letters et seeing more results using the full screen rather than a small dropdown list. And simply choosing if I am searching for a file, an application (I refuse to say app!) or a control panel widget is not an inconvenience at all. Plus I get to leave that search result open while I do something else.
This being said, my original comment was about the fact that I never had any luck getting Windows 7 search working properly. Very often I would get no results at all and either had to give up or go through a lenghty process of googling, rebuilding indexes, changing settings in the control panel, updating registry keys, rebooting, etc. before usually giving up. In Windows 8 it just works.
Well now I sound like a Windows 8 cheerleader, which I'm not. It has many benefits, it boots much faster (on a decent laptop there is basically no time difference between logging off and rebooting) and the few settings that can be modified in the Metro configuration mode are much more user-friendly. Yet it does not feel completely done and seeing that Microsoft has not even released a Metro version of Office it's not surprising that developers don't rush and build more applications. It's expensive to be a pioneer on someone else's operating system.
I disagree. In my experience Windows 8 is annoying at first but after a while it becomes more convenient than Windows 7.
When they released Windows 8 I took advantage of the upgrade deal (something like $40) and installed it on my Windows 7 laptop (which has no touch screen). I wanted to experience the real thing so I fought the urge to install one of those 3rd party start menu. It felt more natural to work in Desktop mode but a few things got in the way, like pictures or PDF opening in Metro mode, and after a while I switched back to Windows 7. Meanwhile I got a tablet that comes with Windows 8 (not RT) and got the hang of it.
I now regret having switched back to Windows 7 on my laptop. Turns out that pinning shortcuts to the task bar does the job 95% of the time, and for everything else the start screen and the Search charm in Windows 8 are infinitely superior to the Start Menu navigation or the Start Menu search in Windows 7. The integration with the Live ID is also convenient as I use Sky Drive, Office.com and Outlook.com extensively for work. Some other features like the quick multi-display setup or the wifi picker are also superior in Windows 8. And I found out that I prefer browsing the web in Metro mode (Chrome so I can keep my bookmarks) and reading news is also more pleasant because lateral paging is way better than scrolling down, even with a mouse.
So Windows 8 is not all bad. The transition between Metro and Desktop is weird and at first I was always switching to Desktop, but after a while I was actually disappointed when I had to launch a non-Metro application. I really think that when most applications are Metro things will be much better but I guess it will take a while.
I probably won't reinstall Windows 8 on my laptop but whenever I buy a new one I'll be happy that it comes with Windows 8, touch screen or not.
Many (most?) data centers I've been in have been buildings converted from some other use -- office buildings, warehouses, etc. But regardless of how they are built, they always seem to have relatively low ceilings, even in converted spaces where they rip out the ceiling grid.
I get the density argument, but I often wonder if someone built a data center with a 50 foot ceiling (a large, flat building) if you wouldn't gain some cooling benefit from convection that would be worth the sacrifice in vertical density versus the cost in intensive forced air cooling.
I don't see why high ceilings would make a difference - you have X BTU/hr of heat to remove - letting it accumulate at the ceiling doesn't seem to make much difference (unless you have a lot of conductive losses through the walls/ceiling).
I can't beleive there's any economic argument for giving up 66% - 75% of your potential floor space (12 or 16 foot ceilings versus 48 foot ceilings) just to let heat rise to the ceiling.
Hot aisles make the heat exchangers more efficient.
That's not the point of improved convection. The idea is not to let heat rise, it is to give more room to the air so the flow can establish wider patterns, bringing cooler air in contact with the heat source without requiring additional power for blowers. Contrary to popular misconception, there is no need to blow artic air on a server to cool it down.
What if you are nearing the limits of the datacenter, cooling, power delivery etc. I don't have exact numbers but the cost for watt is greater than what you pay the power company.
That's more complicated than it looks. On a first look it may seem like this does not change cooling requirements; most datacenter simply use a formula such as watts/3 to get a rough ideas of the needed BTUs. However the more you space out heat sources, the more natural cooling (convection) can do a magnificent job as the air flow is more optimally utilized. Or maybe having more heat sources can mitigate the benefits; it's hard to tell, that's why God created CFD applications.
The only hard limits would be physical space and power distribution inside the datacenter.
This being said, for years datacenters have been built without actual knowledge of how technology would evolve over their lifetime and so far they managed to work with neverending change. This just is one more.
From the website: "Trisquel was born in the Galicia region of Spain, so the primary language was Galician, and Castilian and English were also included. In version 2.0, Catalan and Basque were added".
Galician, Castilian, Catalan, Basque... No wonder a fork from a fork is coming out of a country where they have so many different sub-languages. Those people can't even get along with other Spaniards. Even money that Trisquel itself will fork before the rooster crows.
On tv they have those cops shows where they play good cop / bad cop or lie to the suspect in order to get information or a confession. As valued spectators we only get to see the times these methods are used to catch a pedophile or stop a nuclear bomb, but in real life this is how it's done all the time. One should keep this in mind when dealing with po-po.
Today a client of mine bought a subscription to a web application (SaaS) and because they have Windows 8 workstations (IE10 built-in) they had to install Firefox, otherwise the web application would not work.
In the last two versions or so of IE, Microsoft has taken a path of enforcing things prematurely. IE is the only browser where jQuery post is not working, and they also force CORS down the throat while many applications are built on jsonp solutions.
I remember a long time ago where workarounds in CSS were mostly for Netscape. Now it's almost always for IE.
European "wealth" has been built on the blood and misery of others. Namely: colonies. And of course since there are no more colonies, many European countries are going bankrupt, fast. France, Italy, Spain, etc.
So you guys got to learn how to work and make money yourselves, then you can give lessons about tax.
> Increasing wealth at one pole, increasing misery at the other.
This has nothing to do with capitalism. This has to do with the government raising taxes aimed at the middle class since the rich can move and the poor can't pay. Decade after decade the middle class shrinks while prices go up, taxes go up and the government becomes like a pimp managing tired older whores.
When both political parties give the government's ATM card to lobbies and spend trillions on what they think will get them elected again it appears that there is no hope.
There is only one solution: become rich or become poor.
I really don't mind that it's not an open platform. I think the app store (or whatever name they use) is great and I'm sure gamers all enjoy the features of the Gold membership. All I'm saying is: let people use Netflix without that membership (like they do on PS3 and Wii) and it's all good.
All those apps, including Netflix, should be available without the Gold membership.
Yeah they should just develop, maintain and run them on their network for free. It's not an open platform - this may be news to you - which is why companies like Netflix can't just develop an app and put it on there [...]
Ok I don't know if you did not read the thread or are just being unpleasant, but the question is not about paying $7 for Netflix. It's about paying $5 to Microsoft just to be able *then* to pay that $7 to Netflix. On the other consoles, on a PC, on a smartphone, this extra $5 is not required. And there is absolutely no resources from Microsoft involved. They are just being greedy and use their console as a paid gatekeeper to content they don't own or manage (i.e: a cash cow).
This is not how value is calculated. I have no need whatsoever for "xbox friends" or in-game chat. I use my Xbox to play single-player games and watch movies on Netflix. Yet, I have to subsidize YOUR usage of the Xbox network with this $50 membership. Even $1 would still be more than what it's worth to me, especially since I can get Netflix running on a PS3 or a WII or a computer without paying that useless fee.
Sometimes i think sad cunts like you deliberately choose not to exercise freedom of choice to get something they know suits their needs better just so they have something to whinge about.
I was talking about Xbox updates, which have nothing to do with Netflix
And happen like once a year, what an inconvenience.
First of all, I was not aware that I needed a Gold membership to watch Netflix (which I pay for separately) when I bought the console. This is very surprising as it does not happen on any other console or device.
Also there has been 3 updates in 2013 already. I don't know why you get only one a year, either you are lucky or time goes by very very slowly in your life (happens to boring people).
The online aspect is available by subscription and apps, netflix, lovefilm, whatever are additions to that subscription service. You are saying that you want those additions for free and not have to pay for the multiplayer content - are you the sort of person that refuses to pay for a 'buy one, get one free' offer as you only want the free one?
I pay $7 a month to watch Netflix movies (I'd probably pay a lot more but don't tell them). I can do that on my PC, my laptop, on a Wii, on a PS3 with no extra cost. However on a Xbox I must also pay $5 to Microsoft for a Gold membership even if I use it only to access Netflix.
I get nothing from this membership other than not being prevented from using a device I paid for to connect on my own internet connection to a third party service that has nothing to do with Microsoft. This is textbook racket: "being engaged in the sale of a solution to a problem that the institution itself creates or perpetuates, with the specific intent to engender continual patronage".
Not for what you get, no. But if you're too tight for that you could always go the PC route.
The issue is not the amount, it's paying a gatekeeper fee. There is absolutely no reason why one should pay just to access a third party service from a console that has already been paid for using an internet connection that is also being paid for. All those apps, including Netflix, should be available without the Gold membership.
It's a racket, plain and simple, and saying that the amount is too small to matter is how they get away with it.
And you know the thing about all that is? It costs money. $50/year. If you can't pay that you probably should spend more time working and less time buying Xboxes.
This is not how value is calculated. I have no need whatsoever for "xbox friends" or in-game chat. I use my Xbox to play single-player games and watch movies on Netflix. Yet, I have to subsidize YOUR usage of the Xbox network with this $50 membership. Even $1 would still be more than what it's worth to me, especially since I can get Netflix running on a PS3 or a WII or a computer without paying that useless fee.
As to Netflix, of course the system kicks you off for having different software than the servers. You can't wait a minute for a 20 mb download every few months?
I was talking about Xbox updates, which have nothing to do with Netflix and should not prevent me from watching a movie on a totally distinct system for which I pay a monthly subscription because I don't want to install right now a bunch of updates I did not ask for. It's made worse because of that $50.
Xbox sucks. One must own a Gold membership (about $5/month) to install many key applications, such as Netflix (for which a paid Netflix subscription is required, of course). And whenever an update is available, refusing to install it immediately will close the Live session, preventing any access to Netflix. This is hugely annoying as those pesky updates frequently happen at the least convenient time.
They really do milk the customers. I bought a 1-year Gold membership but I probably won't renew. Unfortunately the alternative (Playstation) is not that great.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you sure you are replying to a real person and not a script?
This being said, if a script has a blog I would definitely be intrigued by it!
The perplexing thing is the login screen and accounts (are they all Live accounts?)
You can use a Live account, a local account or a domain account (in the pro edition) but the way they designed things a lot of people think they need a Live account. You kinda have to say no to a Live account and then pick another option.
There are some mild benefits to Live accounts like not having to manage local accounts if there are many users on 1 PC (or 1 user on many PC) or being automatically connected to services like Sky Drive. And one does not need to use a Microsoft email address (like live.com or outlook.com) to have a Live account, it's possible to register an existing email address (even gmail).
However there is a gotcha: if you change the Live password while the PC is offline and try to login while the PC is still offline, you need to use the old password. Recently I had a situation where someone did not remember their previous password and was locked out of a tablet because it had been configured only for a wifi network that did not exist anymore... Quite annoying as there is obviously no "Send me my previous password" feature with Live accounts and one needs to login to connect to a wifi network..
Maybe it's a matter of preference then. I prefer typing fewer letters et seeing more results using the full screen rather than a small dropdown list. And simply choosing if I am searching for a file, an application (I refuse to say app!) or a control panel widget is not an inconvenience at all. Plus I get to leave that search result open while I do something else.
This being said, my original comment was about the fact that I never had any luck getting Windows 7 search working properly. Very often I would get no results at all and either had to give up or go through a lenghty process of googling, rebuilding indexes, changing settings in the control panel, updating registry keys, rebooting, etc. before usually giving up. In Windows 8 it just works.
Well now I sound like a Windows 8 cheerleader, which I'm not. It has many benefits, it boots much faster (on a decent laptop there is basically no time difference between logging off and rebooting) and the few settings that can be modified in the Metro configuration mode are much more user-friendly. Yet it does not feel completely done and seeing that Microsoft has not even released a Metro version of Office it's not surprising that developers don't rush and build more applications. It's expensive to be a pioneer on someone else's operating system.
I disagree. In my experience Windows 8 is annoying at first but after a while it becomes more convenient than Windows 7.
When they released Windows 8 I took advantage of the upgrade deal (something like $40) and installed it on my Windows 7 laptop (which has no touch screen). I wanted to experience the real thing so I fought the urge to install one of those 3rd party start menu. It felt more natural to work in Desktop mode but a few things got in the way, like pictures or PDF opening in Metro mode, and after a while I switched back to Windows 7. Meanwhile I got a tablet that comes with Windows 8 (not RT) and got the hang of it.
I now regret having switched back to Windows 7 on my laptop. Turns out that pinning shortcuts to the task bar does the job 95% of the time, and for everything else the start screen and the Search charm in Windows 8 are infinitely superior to the Start Menu navigation or the Start Menu search in Windows 7. The integration with the Live ID is also convenient as I use Sky Drive, Office.com and Outlook.com extensively for work. Some other features like the quick multi-display setup or the wifi picker are also superior in Windows 8. And I found out that I prefer browsing the web in Metro mode (Chrome so I can keep my bookmarks) and reading news is also more pleasant because lateral paging is way better than scrolling down, even with a mouse.
So Windows 8 is not all bad. The transition between Metro and Desktop is weird and at first I was always switching to Desktop, but after a while I was actually disappointed when I had to launch a non-Metro application. I really think that when most applications are Metro things will be much better but I guess it will take a while.
I probably won't reinstall Windows 8 on my laptop but whenever I buy a new one I'll be happy that it comes with Windows 8, touch screen or not.
As for Linux that's a different discussion.
Everyone's upset about this story being a slashvertisement. Toss in a 3D printer and suddenly it's the future of humanity.
A 3D printer that can create rotating paper guns would be even better! Could make a sequel for that Jackal movie with Bruce Willis.
Many (most?) data centers I've been in have been buildings converted from some other use -- office buildings, warehouses, etc. But regardless of how they are built, they always seem to have relatively low ceilings, even in converted spaces where they rip out the ceiling grid.
I get the density argument, but I often wonder if someone built a data center with a 50 foot ceiling (a large, flat building) if you wouldn't gain some cooling benefit from convection that would be worth the sacrifice in vertical density versus the cost in intensive forced air cooling.
I don't see why high ceilings would make a difference - you have X BTU/hr of heat to remove - letting it accumulate at the ceiling doesn't seem to make much difference (unless you have a lot of conductive losses through the walls/ceiling).
I can't beleive there's any economic argument for giving up 66% - 75% of your potential floor space (12 or 16 foot ceilings versus 48 foot ceilings) just to let heat rise to the ceiling.
Hot aisles make the heat exchangers more efficient.
That's not the point of improved convection. The idea is not to let heat rise, it is to give more room to the air so the flow can establish wider patterns, bringing cooler air in contact with the heat source without requiring additional power for blowers. Contrary to popular misconception, there is no need to blow artic air on a server to cool it down.
What if you are nearing the limits of the datacenter, cooling, power delivery etc. I don't have exact numbers but the cost for watt is greater than what you pay the power company.
That's more complicated than it looks. On a first look it may seem like this does not change cooling requirements; most datacenter simply use a formula such as watts/3 to get a rough ideas of the needed BTUs. However the more you space out heat sources, the more natural cooling (convection) can do a magnificent job as the air flow is more optimally utilized. Or maybe having more heat sources can mitigate the benefits; it's hard to tell, that's why God created CFD applications.
The only hard limits would be physical space and power distribution inside the datacenter.
This being said, for years datacenters have been built without actual knowledge of how technology would evolve over their lifetime and so far they managed to work with neverending change. This just is one more.
From the website:
"Trisquel was born in the Galicia region of Spain, so the primary language was Galician, and Castilian and English were also included. In version 2.0, Catalan and Basque were added".
Galician, Castilian, Catalan, Basque... No wonder a fork from a fork is coming out of a country where they have so many different sub-languages. Those people can't even get along with other Spaniards. Even money that Trisquel itself will fork before the rooster crows.
Is this a Libre version of your original post?
... as shown in the Showtime documentary "House of lies".
My employer has deployed a heavy-handed security environment on all Windows workstations along with an antique version of IE.
Forcing IE5 or IE6 for security reasons is, at least, unusual.
I prefer: "loose lips shink ships" or "snitches get stitches"
On tv they have those cops shows where they play good cop / bad cop or lie to the suspect in order to get information or a confession. As valued spectators we only get to see the times these methods are used to catch a pedophile or stop a nuclear bomb, but in real life this is how it's done all the time. One should keep this in mind when dealing with po-po.
Today a client of mine bought a subscription to a web application (SaaS) and because they have Windows 8 workstations (IE10 built-in) they had to install Firefox, otherwise the web application would not work.
In the last two versions or so of IE, Microsoft has taken a path of enforcing things prematurely. IE is the only browser where jQuery post is not working, and they also force CORS down the throat while many applications are built on jsonp solutions.
I remember a long time ago where workarounds in CSS were mostly for Netscape. Now it's almost always for IE.
European "wealth" has been built on the blood and misery of others. Namely: colonies. And of course since there are no more colonies, many European countries are going bankrupt, fast. France, Italy, Spain, etc.
So you guys got to learn how to work and make money yourselves, then you can give lessons about tax.
> Increasing wealth at one pole, increasing misery at the other.
This has nothing to do with capitalism. This has to do with the government raising taxes aimed at the middle class since the rich can move and the poor can't pay. Decade after decade the middle class shrinks while prices go up, taxes go up and the government becomes like a pimp managing tired older whores.
When both political parties give the government's ATM card to lobbies and spend trillions on what they think will get them elected again it appears that there is no hope.
There is only one solution: become rich or become poor.
Maybe those have the same bug since they are (allegedly) such a shameful copy of the iPhone...
I really don't mind that it's not an open platform. I think the app store (or whatever name they use) is great and I'm sure gamers all enjoy the features of the Gold membership. All I'm saying is: let people use Netflix without that membership (like they do on PS3 and Wii) and it's all good.
All those apps, including Netflix, should be available without the Gold membership.
Yeah they should just develop, maintain and run them on their network for free. It's not an open platform - this may be news to you - which is why companies like Netflix can't just develop an app and put it on there [...]
Ok I don't know if you did not read the thread or are just being unpleasant, but the question is not about paying $7 for Netflix. It's about paying $5 to Microsoft just to be able *then* to pay that $7 to Netflix. On the other consoles, on a PC, on a smartphone, this extra $5 is not required. And there is absolutely no resources from Microsoft involved. They are just being greedy and use their console as a paid gatekeeper to content they don't own or manage (i.e: a cash cow).
This is not how value is calculated. I have no need whatsoever for "xbox friends" or in-game chat. I use my Xbox to play single-player games and watch movies on Netflix. Yet, I have to subsidize YOUR usage of the Xbox network with this $50 membership. Even $1 would still be more than what it's worth to me, especially since I can get Netflix running on a PS3 or a WII or a computer without paying that useless fee.
Sometimes i think sad cunts like you deliberately choose not to exercise freedom of choice to get something they know suits their needs better just so they have something to whinge about.
I was talking about Xbox updates, which have nothing to do with Netflix
And happen like once a year, what an inconvenience.
First of all, I was not aware that I needed a Gold membership to watch Netflix (which I pay for separately) when I bought the console. This is very surprising as it does not happen on any other console or device.
Also there has been 3 updates in 2013 already. I don't know why you get only one a year, either you are lucky or time goes by very very slowly in your life (happens to boring people).
The online aspect is available by subscription and apps, netflix, lovefilm, whatever are additions to that subscription service. You are saying that you want those additions for free and not have to pay for the multiplayer content - are you the sort of person that refuses to pay for a 'buy one, get one free' offer as you only want the free one?
I pay $7 a month to watch Netflix movies (I'd probably pay a lot more but don't tell them). I can do that on my PC, my laptop, on a Wii, on a PS3 with no extra cost. However on a Xbox I must also pay $5 to Microsoft for a Gold membership even if I use it only to access Netflix.
I get nothing from this membership other than not being prevented from using a device I paid for to connect on my own internet connection to a third party service that has nothing to do with Microsoft. This is textbook racket: "being engaged in the sale of a solution to a problem that the institution itself creates or perpetuates, with the specific intent to engender continual patronage".
Agreed - it isn't much of a sacrifice.
Not for what you get, no. But if you're too tight for that you could always go the PC route.
The issue is not the amount, it's paying a gatekeeper fee. There is absolutely no reason why one should pay just to access a third party service from a console that has already been paid for using an internet connection that is also being paid for. All those apps, including Netflix, should be available without the Gold membership.
It's a racket, plain and simple, and saying that the amount is too small to matter is how they get away with it.
And you know the thing about all that is? It costs money. $50/year. If you can't pay that you probably should spend more time working and less time buying Xboxes.
This is not how value is calculated. I have no need whatsoever for "xbox friends" or in-game chat. I use my Xbox to play single-player games and watch movies on Netflix. Yet, I have to subsidize YOUR usage of the Xbox network with this $50 membership. Even $1 would still be more than what it's worth to me, especially since I can get Netflix running on a PS3 or a WII or a computer without paying that useless fee.
As to Netflix, of course the system kicks you off for having different software than the servers. You can't wait a minute for a 20 mb download every few months?
I was talking about Xbox updates, which have nothing to do with Netflix and should not prevent me from watching a movie on a totally distinct system for which I pay a monthly subscription because I don't want to install right now a bunch of updates I did not ask for. It's made worse because of that $50.
Xbox sucks. One must own a Gold membership (about $5/month) to install many key applications, such as Netflix (for which a paid Netflix subscription is required, of course). And whenever an update is available, refusing to install it immediately will close the Live session, preventing any access to Netflix. This is hugely annoying as those pesky updates frequently happen at the least convenient time.
They really do milk the customers. I bought a 1-year Gold membership but I probably won't renew. Unfortunately the alternative (Playstation) is not that great.
"According to statistics, 9 out of 10 businesses fail."
-Lousy Wikipedia article [1]
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Turn_Your_Million_Dollar_Idea_into_a_Reality